Tough question. I love this show and was thrilled we got an 11th and 12th season, but going past that may be a stretch. Then again, NCIS is in its 15th season, so who knows?

NCIS has had several rather significant cast changes over that time.

@TheBayHarborButcher said:

http://tvline.com/2018/01/06/big-bang-theory-ending-final-season-12-johnny-galecki/

Johnny Galecki recently said he thinks season 12 of TBBT will be the final season. However, I have a hard time believing CBS will let the show end so easily. It's still their highest rated show, and CBS has had a tough time finding other well rated comedies to add to their line up. I'm guessing they will probably offer the cast a ton of money to continue past season 12. Either that or I could see them setting up another spinoff with Raj and/or Howard leading.

I think 12 will be it.

As for Galecki's statement, that's just his way of letting the entire industry know when he will be available. It's NEVER TO EARLY to put out feelers.

Please! Please! Please! Will the he-has-so-much-money-he-never-has-to-work-again people please spare me! He is an actor - actors want to act. He is a "craftsman" - craftsmen want to practice their craft. Yes, is important; but, sometimes it's not the only motivator.

I think people get too hung up on time. "The series has gone on too long..." blah blah blah.

What difference does it make HOW long the show goes on, as long as the audience is enjoying it? If people aren't enjoying it, stop watching. But until then, I'm really not interested in hearing people utter "It's been 12 years - that's too long. It's time to end it." Constantly parroting that or similar statements is just intellectually lazy.

Now, if one or more of them want to move onto other projects, fine. But other than Parsons (and maybe not even him), I doubt any of these actors have a shot at the kind of paydays they are getting right now. So they'd be wise, if money is any kind of object, to continue to do this series.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

I think people get too hung up on time. "The series has gone on too long..." blah blah blah.

What difference does it make HOW long the show goes on, as long as the audience is enjoying it? If people aren't enjoying it, stop watching. But until then, I'm really not interested in hearing people utter "It's been 12 years - that's too long. It's time to end it." Constantly parroting that or similar statements is just intellectually lazy.

Now, if one or more of them want to move onto other projects, fine. But other than Parsons (and maybe not even him), I doubt any of these actors have a shot at the kind of paydays they are getting right now. So they'd be wise, if money is any kind of object, to continue to do this series.

Once Jim says he's done, the show's done That's always been my take on it. The money or ratings will never be enough of an issue to end it, but a rapid decrease in star power would.

Maybe. But that seems like something of an assumption that Jim was a star before TBBT, and it was his "star power" that made TBBT popular to start with. And/or that he has some kind of star power of his own now, independent of TBBT. But he wasn't, and I would argue that it didn't. And that he doesn't. I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. He might have some continuing "fame" if he goes to Broadway after TBBT ends, but Broadway "fame" is actually very small when you look at it. Basically, once he leaves TBBT - or once TBBT leaves him - I don't think the world will hear or see much of Jim Parsons any more. Nor will it miss him.

I actually started watching not because Johnny Galecki was so great on Roseanne, or because Simon Helber or Kunal Nayyar were so great in whatever they might have been in before (actually I'd never heard of either of them), or because of Jim Parsons for that matter (I'd never heard of him before either).

I started watching because Kaley was really good in the last season of Charmed. At this point, pretty much any of them - including Kaley - could be replaced if done well enough. Although in some ways Kaley might be the most difficult to replace well. But I sure wouldn't stop watching just because Jim left, assuming the producers etc kept making the show after that. And I sure wouldn't be one to suggest they stop if he did leave. His character, as far as I'm concerned, is only slightly less disposable than Raj. Or Stuart.

@Knixon said:

Maybe. But that seems like something of an assumption that Jim was a star before TBBT, and it was his "star power" that made TBBT popular to start with. And/or that he has some kind of star power of his own now, independent of TBBT. But he wasn't, and I would argue that it didn't. And that he doesn't. I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. He might have some continuing "fame" if he goes to Broadway after TBBT ends, but Broadway "fame" is actually very small when you look at it. Basically, once he leaves TBBT - or once TBBT leaves him - I don't think the world will hear or see much of Jim Parsons any more. Nor will it miss him.

I actually started watching not because Johnny Galecki was so great on Roseanne, or because Simon Helber or Kunal Nayyar were so great in whatever they might have been in before (actually I'd never heard of either of them), or because of Jim Parsons for that matter (I'd never heard of him before either).

I started watching because Kaley was really good in the last season of Charmed. At this point, pretty much any of them - including Kaley - could be replaced if done well enough. Although in some ways Kaley might be the most difficult to replace well. But I sure wouldn't stop watching just because Jim left, assuming the producers etc kept making the show after that. And I sure wouldn't be one to suggest they stop if he did leave. His character, as far as I'm concerned, is only slightly less disposable than Raj. Or Stuart.

Come now Sire Knixon, have you been drinking the juice from the cuckoo tree? Sheldon is life breath of the show. I like the other characters, they are important, and I don't want them to leave, but Sheldon is what makes this show stand out. The other characters are there, in part, for him to play off of and to highlight his ways. No Sheldon and we've basically got Friends: Nerd Edition.

And to answer the OP, perhaps they can end the series after Season 12, and then come back in a couple of decades with a show called, "Old Sheldon".

@Knixon said:

Maybe. But that seems like something of an assumption that Jim was a star before TBBT, and it was his "star power" that made TBBT popular to start with. And/or that he has some kind of star power of his own now, independent of TBBT. But he wasn't, and I would argue that it didn't. And that he doesn't. I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. He might have some continuing "fame" if he goes to Broadway after TBBT ends, but Broadway "fame" is actually very small when you look at it. Basically, once he leaves TBBT - or once TBBT leaves him - I don't think the world will hear or see much of Jim Parsons any more. Nor will it miss him.

I actually started watching not because Johnny Galecki was so great on Roseanne, or because Simon Helber or Kunal Nayyar were so great in whatever they might have been in before (actually I'd never heard of either of them), or because of Jim Parsons for that matter (I'd never heard of him before either).

I started watching because Kaley was really good in the last season of Charmed. At this point, pretty much any of them - including Kaley - could be replaced if done well enough. Although in some ways Kaley might be the most difficult to replace well. But I sure wouldn't stop watching just because Jim left, assuming the producers etc kept making the show after that. And I sure wouldn't be one to suggest they stop if he did leave. His character, as far as I'm concerned, is only slightly less disposable than Raj. Or Stuart.

Your distaste for Jim Parsons is well-established, but your logic is faulty. Jim is the breakout star of this show - no Sheldon, no Big Bang, period. David Caruso greatly overestimated his worth and his popularity. To say that we will not hear from JP or that the world won't miss him is hilarious. YOU won't miss him, and I'm sure others won't, but some will be happy to see him go on to other things, be that Broadway, producing, directing, or another tv show. Heck, he's got TWO successful shows on the air right now. The man is set for life - even if we didn't hear from him again, I'm sure he will do quite well in whatever path he chooses to pursue. He's already won.

Though I have him blocked, I can still see this idiot's posts when quoted.

"I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. "

That statement is so ignorant and filled with pathetic logic that it's just further proof of what a complete idiot this Knixon guy is.
Gee...did David Carruso leave his show after 12 years, or ONE? Did David Carrusso's character on NYPD Blue get spun off into another successful show? Uh....no. The 2 examples are not similar in any way, shape or form, other than in Knixon's mind (such as it is).

Sheldon is the breakout start of TBBT much the way Fonzie was on Happy Days. To sit back and deny the obvious shows how small someone can be.

I think at this point, TBBT could survive for a few years with the departure of any one character, besides Sheldon.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

Though I have him blocked, I can still see this idiot's posts when quoted.

"I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. "

That statement is so ignorant and filled with pathetic logic that it's just further proof of what a complete idiot this Knixon guy is.
Gee...did David Carruso leave his show after 12 years, or ONE? Did David Carrusso's character on NYPD Blue get spun off into another successful show? Uh....no. The 2 examples are not similar in any way, shape or form, other than in Knixon's mind (such as it is).

Sheldon is the breakout start of TBBT much the way Fonzie was on Happy Days. To sit back and deny the obvious shows how small someone can be.

I think at this point, TBBT could survive for a few years with the departure of any one character, besides Sheldon.

He's not saying is becuase he believes it, he's saying for the sake of disagreement, because he's a troll.

No one with a shred of common Sense could actually believe Jim is not the star of the show, he objectively is, hence the widely popular and heavily -invested in spin-off based on his character.

But Knixon is going to respond me with his Hallmark oddly placed "quotes" and off topic "tangents" even though he's on ignore.

@Knixon said:

Maybe. But that seems like something of an assumption that Jim was a star before TBBT, and it was his "star power" that made TBBT popular to start with. And/or that he has some kind of star power of his own now, independent of TBBT. But he wasn't, and I would argue that it didn't. And that he doesn't. I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. He might have some continuing "fame" if he goes to Broadway after TBBT ends, but Broadway "fame" is actually very small when you look at it. Basically, once he leaves TBBT - or once TBBT leaves him - I don't think the world will hear or see much of Jim Parsons any more. Nor will it miss him.

I actually started watching not because Johnny Galecki was so great on Roseanne, or because Simon Helber or Kunal Nayyar were so great in whatever they might have been in before (actually I'd never heard of either of them), or because of Jim Parsons for that matter (I'd never heard of him before either).

I started watching because Kaley was really good in the last season of Charmed. At this point, pretty much any of them - including Kaley - could be replaced if done well enough. Although in some ways Kaley might be the most difficult to replace well. But I sure wouldn't stop watching just because Jim left, assuming the producers etc kept making the show after that. And I sure wouldn't be one to suggest they stop if he did leave. His character, as far as I'm concerned, is only slightly less disposable than Raj. Or Stuart.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

Though I have him blocked, I can still see this idiot's posts when quoted.

"I see it as similar to how people like David Caruso assumed that it was themselves that made any show they happened to be in, popular; and if they went off to make movies instead or whatever, their audience would follow. Didn't happen for them, and I don't think it would happen for Parsons either. "

That statement is so ignorant and filled with pathetic logic that it's just further proof of what a complete idiot this Knixon guy is.
Gee...did David Carruso leave his show after 12 years, or ONE? Did David Carrusso's character on NYPD Blue get spun off into another successful show? Uh....no. The 2 examples are not similar in any way, shape or form, other than in Knixon's mind (such as it is).

Sheldon is the breakout start of TBBT much the way Fonzie was on Happy Days. To sit back and deny the obvious shows how small someone can be.

I think at this point, TBBT could survive for a few years with the departure of any one character, besides Sheldon.

Well, he's wrong. I guess you could make a case Kaley is a star of the show too, but to make a case that Jim is NOT would be a laborious excercise.

Hard to make the case that the guy who headlines the original AND narrates the spin-off is not the star of the show.

@Lemons said:

Come now Sire Knixon, have you been drinking the juice from the cuckoo tree? Sheldon is life breath of the show. I like the other characters, they are important, and I don't want them to leave, but Sheldon is what makes this show stand out. The other characters are there, in part, for him to play off of and to highlight his ways. No Sheldon and we've basically got Friends: Nerd Edition.

As has been mentioned previously, but I don't remember how long ago, I see it pretty much the opposite: the other characters use Sheldon to play off. They could - and have, really, in some episodes - played off Kripke, Bert, and others.

It's important to remember that the show is the way it is, because of the characters they have. If they had different characters, it would be different. And it would have been different from the very start, perhaps leading in very different directions. It's not like you would replace Parsons with John Ross Bowie (Kripke) and give him all the same lines in all the exact same situations. Then match him up with Mayim in season 4, etc. Sure, we can say - and I might even agree - that if they had just dropped Bowie into the Sheldon character, it would have stunk and not lasted past season 2 or whatever. But that's not what would have happened. And if they had used someone else from the very start, it's pretty much impossible to say that it would necessarily have stunk.

It's similar to when people think about if Cheers had been made with the earlier casting choice of Fred Dryer ("Hunter," etc) as Sam Malone. It might seem impossible to think about it now, after it's already been done and finished, but again it's not like everything in the show would have been exactly the same except for one actor. And if they HAD made the whole run, however many seasons, with Dryer instead, we might very well be thinking now "Are you smoking a marijuana? Ted Danson as Sam Malone? That's crazy talk!"

Yes, for the way they went with the show, Parsons is a great fit. But that's because they've been writing it around how he is. If they had someone else instead, it would have been written differently all along. And we can't really know if that would have been so much worse, or so much better.

@CalabrianQueen said:

That statement is so ignorant and filled with pathetic logic that it's just further proof of what a complete idiot this Knixon guy is.
Gee...did David Carruso leave his show after 12 years, or ONE? Did David Carrusso's character on NYPD Blue get spun off into another successful show? Uh....no. The 2 examples are not similar in any way, shape or form, other than in Knixon's mind (such as it is).

Sheldon is the breakout start of TBBT much the way Fonzie was on Happy Days. To sit back and deny the obvious shows how small someone can be.

I think at this point, TBBT could survive for a few years with the departure of any one character, besides Sheldon.

He's not saying is becuase he believes it, he's saying for the sake of disagreement, because he's a troll.

No one with a shred of common Sense could actually believe Jim is not the star of the show, he objectively is, hence the widely popular and heavily -invested in spin-off based on his character.

But Knixon is going to respond me with his Hallmark oddly placed "quotes" and off topic "tangents" even though he's on ignore.

I wasn't saying that Caruso objectively was supposed to be a continuing success etc. But it seems clear from interviews etc, that HE thought so. That was my point.

The rest sounds a lot like Sheldon claiming the Empire are really the good guys in Star Wars, or Barney Stinson claiming that Karate Kid was really about that pesky kid Daniel-san getting in the way of Johnny Lawrence's well-deserved rise to fame and success.

It would also be impossible to convince either of them that they're wrong, although they certainly are. And yet I'm the one who's supposedly autistic? What a laugh.